Romney to GOP donors: ‘I want to be president.’

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Post.

Mitt you need to understand your a loser you could not get the GOP base out in 2012 and you will not get them in 2016.

I held my nose and voted Dole in 96, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 it will not happen in 2016.


Mitt Romney forcefully declared his interest in a third presidential run to a room full of powerful Republican donors Friday, disrupting the fluid 2016 GOP field as would-be rival Jeb Bush was moving swiftly to consolidate establishment support.

Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee, has been mulling another campaign for several months, but his comments Friday marked a clear step forward in his thinking and come amid mounting tensions between the Romney and Bush camps.

“I want to be president,” Romney told about 30 donors in New York. He said that his wife, Ann — who last fall said she was emphatically against a run — had changed her mind and was now “very encouraging,” although their five sons remain split, according to multiple attendees.

Advisers said Romney discussed the race with his family over the holidays, when they spent time skiing in Park City, Utah, but he insisted that he has not made up his mind whether to run. Advisers said he recognizes that he would not be able to waltz into the nomination and that the intra-party competition is shaping up to be stiffer in next year’s primaries than it was in 2012.

Bush’s sudden focus on the race in recent weeks has put pressure on Romney to decide soon. Romney has been in regular conversations with major donors, some of whom are pushing him to run again, but confidants have also warned him that his window of opportunity could shut if he does not declare his intentions within 30 to 60 days.

Romney’s comments at Friday’s meeting, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, electrified the world of Republican financiers, who are being courted aggressively by Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and other hopefuls. Romney’s dalliance could freeze enough donors to spoil Bush’s plan to post an intimidatingly huge first-quarter fundraising haul this spring.

“What he has said to me before is, ‘I am preserving my options.’ What he is now saying is, ‘I am seriously considering a run,’ ” said Bobbie Kilberg, a top donor from Virginia who raised millions of dollars for Romney’s 2012 bid. She was briefed by attendees on Romney’s Friday comments. “And he said that in a room with 30 people. That is a different degree of intensity.”

Striving to keep his network intact, Romney on Friday also e-mailed his donors with invitations to his fourth annual policy summit in Park City, scheduled for June 11-13. Called the E2 Summit, the event is billed as an “intimate” gathering of Wall Street titans, politicos and former government officials.

Romney’s associates said that he has become restless since conceding to President Obama on a cold night in Boston two years ago. Romney’s motivation to run again stems from a lingering dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, both economic and foreign, and a belief that he would have set the country on a better course.

Romney also harbors doubts that Bush and other Republican contenders can defeat likely Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, advisers said, and is wary in particular about Bush’s political skills.

“I believe Mitt Romney is too much of a patriot to sit on the sidelines and concede the presidency to Hillary Clinton or [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren when he knows that he can fix the country,” said Spencer Zwick, Romney’s 2012 national finance chairman, who accompanied Romney to Friday’s New York meeting.

“I think, at the end of the day, he believes he could actually make a difference,” Zwick said. “He won’t make a decision to run for president based on who else is in the race. He will make a decision based on his own desire and his own abilities.”

Romney’s advisers said he is approaching the decision pragmatically. “He does not go into things looking through rose-
colored glasses,” said one Romney adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

This adviser said Romney is far from having his mind made up: “He knows he’ll have to earn it, and he believes in that; that the presidency is too important to hand it over to somebody. He doesn’t talk like that at all. He wants to go out and make his case to the American people and see what happens. But he’s not that far.”

One immediate hurdle Romney would face is that many of the prominent donors that backed his last campaign, as well as some senior operatives who worked for him before, have already been scooped up by Bush or other candidates. GOP lawyer Charlie Spies, who co-founded the pro-Romney super PAC Restore our Future, is now representing Bush’s leadership committee, the Right to Rise PAC, as well as a pro-Bush super PAC of the same name.

Some Republicans have sharply criticized him since 2012 over his missteps on the campaign trail and his final performance — he lost every swing state except North Carolina and finished with 206 electoral votes to Obama’s 332. Democrats successfully cast him as out of touch with the middle class after he was caught on video telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of Americans do not take personal responsibility for their lives.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), a 2016 presidential hopeful, assailed Romney shortly after the 2012 election: “We have to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent.” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), also eyeing a 2016 run, wrote in his 2013 book that Romney did a “lousy job” talking about the economy “in a way that is relevant to people’s lives.”

Friday’s declaration of interest by Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and businessman, was not welcomed by all of his former allies — especially those close to the Bush family.

“Frankly, he has been bypassed by Jeb,” said Doug Gross, Romney’s 2008 Iowa campaign chairman and longtime Bush ally. “The time for Governor Romney has probably passed. He has already lost twice. The jury is very much out on whether Republican voters would go with him again.”

Romney’s relationship with Bush’s orbit has evolved from warm to strained in recent months. Bush’s chief political strategist is Mike Murphy, who also is close to Romney and advised his successful 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Last year, Murphy helped Romney on TV ads for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, shooting on a California set that bore more than a passing resemblance to the Oval Office.

But as Bush has ramped up his own efforts, Romney’s coziness with Murphy has dissipated. They last met shortly before Christmas, when Romney asked Murphy about preparations for Bush’s campaign and told Murphy he had not ruled out a bid of his own, according to Romney backers with knowledge of the conversation.

Romney has been talking frequently with Stuart Stevens, his top 2012 strategist and a Murphy rival, while keeping a watchful eye on Bush’s moves to woo Romney’s former supporters. On Friday, Bush was in Boston, Romney’s home base where he headquartered his past campaigns, trying to persuade Romney donors to get behind his effort.

Veteran GOP consultant Ed Rollins said, “Romney knows that he can block donors from going to Bush if he sends a clear enough message.”

“If you put Romney and Bush head to head, I think Romney probably wins that fight,” Rollins said. “Nobody is wholesale walking away from him. The donor base and operatives are still there. Bush thought he’d have an open field to easily beat Christie. Romney, if he gets in, changes that plan.”

On Wednesday, Romney lectured at Stanford University in a class titled “Understanding the 2016 Campaign from Start to Finish,” which is taught by his former policy director, Lanhee Chen. Romney later had dinner in Menlo Park, Calif., with Chen, former spokeswoman Andrea Saul and former campaign lawyers Ben Ginsberg and Katie Biber Chen.

Romney has remained close to such power brokers as New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, a Republican fundraiser who co-chaired Romney’s 2012 campaign and who attended Friday’s meeting.

“When I walked into Woody’s box a few weeks ago, Romney was sitting there in a turtleneck,” recalled former New Jersey governor Tom Kean. “He was in good spirits.”



Colt Dodges Default by Making $70 Million Deal

Leave a comment

This is from OutDoorHub.

Will this new loan just postpone Colt’s death or rescue them?


Colt Defense LLC has narrowly avoided defaulting on its loan payments after securing a $70 million loan with a Morgan Stanley affiliate. The new senior secured term loan will allow the gun maker to make $10.9 million in loan payments, which was due on Monday but the company had a grace period until December 15 to pay out. In a press release, Colt stated that it believes the new loan “will provide it with the time and flexibility necessary to support its medium and long term objectives.”

Colt indicated that it was at risk of defaulting earlier this month, which could have had severe consequences for one of the world’s oldest and most well-known gun makers. The agreement with Morgan Stanley breathed new life into the company’s coffers, raising bond prices back to 55 cents as of Tuesday. The $70 million loan also means that Colt will be able to satisfy its $48.1 million term loan agreement by the end of the year. If the company did default on its loan payments, creditors could demand immediate payment, causing the gun maker to liquidate its assets and file for bankruptcy. According to the Wall Street Journal, credit-rating company Standard & Poor’s estimated that bondholders would have recovered only about 10 percent of the debt in that scenario.

Colt is still expected to report a 50 to 60 percent decline in operating income for the last quarter compared to the same time period in 2013. The company is also expecting an operating loss for the first nine months of 2014 as well, and bond prices were as low as 35 cents last week. This is believed to be caused by a low demand for civilian market products as well as delays in sales to the US government. Nonetheless, the gun maker reassures customers that the Colt brand still stands “for quality, reliability, accuracy and the assurance of customer satisfaction.”

Colt is based in West Hartford, Connecticut and maintains a facility in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada that supplies the Canadian government with C7 rifles and C8 carbines.

New Poll Shows Just How Much November’s Mid-Terms Could Shake Things Up

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

I hope many DemocRats lose their jobs on November 4,2014.


A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Annenberg survey had some stunning results and they certainly will have a huge impact in next month’s elections.

Some of the results:

  • 52% of likely voters said they wanted the election to produce a Republican-led Congress.
  • 41% wanted a Democrat-led one.
  • This 11-point lead from this week was up from 5 points last week.
  • Among registered voters, a larger group than likely voters, there was a 46% to 42% lead for the Republicans, a 100% increase from the week before.
  • 57% disapprove of the President’s handling of ISIS, with 87% saying it was not aggressive enough.

The current polling for next month’s elections show a pretty close race for the Senate, with each party safe with 45 seats and 10 states considered toss-ups:

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

The House will remain in Republican hands with the only question being if they will pick up more seats:

House Race 2014

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

As far as governorships, it looks like Republicans will also advance here, with the only question being the size of the gain:

Governor's Race 2014

Image credit: Real Clear Politics

The countdown is now measured in weeks and days, and it will be incredibly interesting to see what happens.

If this poll is any indicator, it is likely to be a midterm election of historic levels. And one that makes a very clear statement by voters in which direction they’d like the country to be heading.

Guess Which Loyal Obama Voter Block Will Be Punished the Most By EPA’s Climate Change Regulations

1 Comment

This is from Reigniting Liberty.

To you Obamabots I want to say”Suck It Up Buttercup”.

You voted for Obama now suffer like everyone else.




Answer = Black Americans

President Obama is “rewarding” his most loyal voter block with EPA regulations that will punish black Americans with a big increase in electricity prices which will reduce their disposable income.

High energy prices harm lower- and fixed-income Americans because it takes a larger share of their income than households with greater income. Households with the lowest incomes are hurt the most.

Black households have the lowest average incomes and highest unemployment among demographic groups.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, black households income was at $33,321 in 2012 which is the lowest median income among race groups according to a report by the U.S Census Bureau.

As promised by Obama in 2008, his climate change regulations will make electricity prices “skyrocket.”

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that climate change regulations like the EPA’s recently announced new rules for existing power plants will result in added electricity expenses of $17 billion a year through 2030.

That $17 billion in added costs are going to hurt black families a lot more than Obama’s billionaire donors such Tom Steyer – a big climate change activist.

The impact of rising energy prices on the American households was evaluated in a study sponsored by American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

For 2012, the study found the average income of black households were 33 percent lower than the average income of white households.

In households that earned less than $30,000 in 2012, energy costs were estimated to take about 26 percent of family budgets.

High energy prices are preferentially harming Obama’s biggest supporters, black voters, and it’s going to get worse.

Tragically, too many black voters don’t realize that Obama’s energy policy is responsible for their loss of disposable income.

GOP Rep. Stockman Urges House to Repeal Gun Ban on Military Bases

1 Comment

This is from Town Hall.

William Jefferson Clinton has as much of the dead from the Ft.Hood shootings as does the shooters.

We train military personnel how to use and maintain weapons  under combat conditions.

Yet on stateside military bases we disarm them.


The grievous shooting at Fort Hood Wednesday claimed three innocent lives and left 16 wounded—the deaths occurred in a gun-free zone due to former president Clinton’s 1993 policy to disarm soldiers on military bases.

The attack at Fort Hood lasted 15 minutes before military police arrived and exchanged fire with the shooter who then shot himself, according to theWall Street Journal.

“Only the most out-of-touch radical would try to disarm soldiers,” Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) noted in a press release. He urged House members Thursday to repeal the ban and support his “Safe Military Bases Act.”


 This is the third mass shooting on a military base in five years, and it’s because our trained soldiers aren’t allowed to carry defensive weapons. Anti-gun activists have turned our military bases into soft targets for killers. 

Only the most out-of-touch radical would try to disarm soldiers. It’s time to repeal this deadly anti-gun law before it creates another mass killing. This is another tragedy created by anti-gun activists. If members of Congress are protected by loaded automatic weapons in the Capitol they have no right to deny that right to trained soldiers on base.

In 1991, just six miles from Fort Hood, we suffered a mass shooting at a Luby’s cafeteria of civilians who by law had to leave their guns in their cars. Texas responded to this tragedy by passing a concealed carry bill allowing civilians to defend themselves in public. It’s time for Congress to allow soldiers to defend themselves on base before this happens again.

Stockman’s bill would repeal two military gun control regulations and nullify any additional provisions which prohibit trained military personnel from carrying “officially issued or personally owned firearms on military bases.”

It would also bar the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of military departments from reinforcing these types of regulations and bar the President from issuing an executive order.

As Emily Miller wrote in 2009 after the first Fort Hood shooting:


 It ishard to believe that we don’t trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton’s deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. 

What will it take for legislators to understand that allowing individuals (particularly highly trained military serviceman) to protect themselves is the surest way to promote safety and save lives?


Unions Request a “Do-Over” in Failed Chattanooga Union Vote

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Boo Hoo the UAW Union thugs were not able to bully their way in to the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.

Now they want a do over while trying to intimidate the works by playing the race card.

I guess The First Amendment only applies to UAW Union thugs and DemocRats.



What do you do when a union vote doesn’t go your way? Well, if you are the United Auto Workers union, you ask for a “re-do”. The UAW has asked the National Labor Relations Board to reconsider their failed attempt to unionize Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, because… Well because they think it was unfair that anti-union voices were allowed to make their case on TV, highway billboards, and newspaper columns. In other words: the UAW feels they were unfairly outgunned by free-speech.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The UAW has filed an election objection with the labor board alleging that Republican politicians conducted “a coordinated and widely-publicized coercive campaign” to deprive “workers of their federally-protected right” to “support and select the UAW as their exclusive representative.”

Um… What about the “federally protected right” to free speech? Or does that pesky First Amendment not really apply to Republicans? The union feels as if the anti-unionization case made by outside parties (without the authorization, or endorsement of Volkswagen) constitutes an interference in the vote… It’s a pretty audacious claim, when one considers that the “victim” in this case is one of the nation’s most powerful lobbying and fundraising instrument for progressive causes.

Apparently, the UAW is under the impression that folks like Grover Norquist, Senator Bob Corker, and Republican backed activist groups used intimidation to compel workers to vote against the unionization of VW’s Chattanooga plant. The claim is pretty rich, coming from an organization that has showed strong solidarity with unions that post the names of Michigan workers who opted out of union contracts. It’s kinda like Al Capone complaining that Elliot Ness is “too intimidating”; then appealing for a re-trial on tax evasion.

Union President Bob King said that “it’s an outrage that politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that that would grow jobs in Tennessee.” (Right… Because Motor City’s bankrupt auto manufacturers are such “successful operating models”.) Well, Bob, that’s one interpretation of what happened. Other people, like the 712 workers who voted against the union, might say that such opposition forces were expressing legitimate concerns over unionization.

I mean, heck, only 7 percent of the private workforce is currently unionized… Couldn’t it just be that workers in Tennessee didn’t feel like paying union dues to a Democrat fundraising outfit (cleverly disguised as a labor union)?

Of course, the request for an election re-do is only the latest episode in the union’s temper-tantrum. The eerily Marxist website, (seriously… their motto is “workers of the world unite”, and their logo is a big red star… Joe McCarthy would have a heart attack…), immediately claimed that the vote to remain union-free was inspired mostly by southern racism. Their reasoning was built on the foundation that southerners generally oppose abortion-rights, gun control, and other “liberal” causes. Apparently, concern over your union dues being used to promote “liberal” causes is racist… Congratulations Tennessee: You all cling to guns, religion, and antipathy toward people who are not like you. (Have we heard that line before?)

The real reason people in Chattanooga didn’t seem thrilled about unionizing:Detroit. Oh, and maybe workers don’t like the idea of compulsory donations to the Democrat Party.

Apparently calling “scabs” and non-union workers a bunch of racist morons is notintimidation… But going on public television and expressing concern over the effects that unionization might have on the state’s ability to attract more manufacturing jobs is grounds for voiding inconvenient outcomes… I think we’re starting to get the picture. (Conservatives are racist, and non-union workers are brainwashed subjects of massive voter intimidation… But, yeah: I’m the type of guy that wears a tin-foil hat.)

Basically, the UAW is upset because opposition voices were allowed to express their opinions (Gasp!). Heaven forbid workers be exposed to both sides of an argument!!!

By the way, VW stayed definitively neutral – even pro-union at times. In fact,according to Forbes:

Although politicians were outspoken, Volkswagen remained neutral during the organizing campaign. It hopes to establish a European-style “works council” in Chattanooga, as it has at other plants around the world. Under U.S. labor law, however, that model of labor-management relations requires the existence of a union.

So… Even though VW did it’s best to remain neutral – despite it’s clear bias toward establishing a union presence – the mere existence of anti-union commentary made the election “unfair” in the eyes of the union. (Maybe the UAW would like to adopt Harvard style censorship in lieu of the First Amendment?)

The UAW’s tantrum, and subsequent request for a second vote, is yet another example of the Left’s intolerance for dissent. They call the opposition “racist”, and immediately request a rematch because their political opponents were allowed the opportunity to exercise freedom of speech.

The new slogan of the collectivist Left: “Workers of the world unite!” (So long as they unite in support of Democrat fundraising machines like the UAW.)

Our four favorite quotes about Obamacare

Leave a comment

This is from The Blaze.

So much has been said about the infamous Obamacare legislation currently being implemented across America. So many things, in fact, that we wanted to take a moment to celebrate the most absurd, astounding and incomprehensible statements made about this bill.

Here are a few of our favorites:

1. “You know, so much of what we see in the news is negative. But you know what? It’s not negative. This is the most positive thing that this country has done since the civil rights legislation that was passed back in the ’60s.”

– Ed Schultz on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, August 26, 2013.

While Ed may think this legislation is the best thing the United States has accomplished in more than five decades, many Americans would disagree. Higher premiums and less choice do not equate with greatness for the many in our nation struggling to pay bills and balance a household budget.

2.  “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly.”

– Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)

Alan Grayson, best known for losing $18 million in an investment scheme and being generally reprehensible, uttered this nonsense while on the floor of the House in 2009. Some might argue minimum requirements for deductibles, co-pays, services and total out-of-pocket expenses are inefficient and violate our ability to purchase what we need in a free market economy.

Sponsor’s Note: There is hope for those looking to save money on their health care package. Wellspring has created a benefit package to help hardworking, middle-class Americans save on out-of-pocket health care costs. Discover how today.

3. “There are plenty of horror stories being told (about Obamacare) all of them are untrue.”

– Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), February 25th, 2014

To the many Americans who feel helpless, confused and frustrated that something as basic as health care and health insurance has become one of the most, if not the most, expensive monthly cost – the stories are true. For the 300,000 people who had their policies terminated by Florida Blue, they’re true.

4. “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it.  If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too.  The only changes you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”

– President Barack Obama, June 6, 2009

This is perhaps the most famous quote about Obamacare, delivered a staggering 37 times by President Obama or a senior member of his administration. Most customers who were sent cancellation letters were given a deadline of Dec. 31 to switch or they’d be automatically enrolled in a recommended plan.

While President Barack Obama stated the Affordable Care Act would lower premiums for a family of four by $2,500, this hasn’t been the case. On the website, deductibles are averaging $5,081 per year for the minimal-coverage Bronze plans. For some households, deductibles may be as high as $12,700 annually, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The folks at genuinely care about saving Americans money on their health care costs. As James Jones of CommonSenseCare notes, “We’re seeing real people being impacted in a positive way. I want customers to feel empowered to take control of their health care costs that we all have as middle-class Americans.”

A Group Of Snipers Shot Up A Silicon Valley Power Station For 19 Minutes Last Year Before Slipping Into The Night

Leave a comment

This is from Business Insider.

I do not care what anybody says if your shooting to knock out the power grid your a terrorist.

How many more grid sites are vulnerable to a terrorist attack?


This is scary.


The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith reports that a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman is acknowledging for the first time that a group of snipers shot up a Silicon Valley substation for 19 minutes last year, knocking out 17 transformers before slipping away into the night.

The attack was “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred” in the U.S., Jon Wellinghoff, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time, told Smith.

A blackout was avoided thanks to quick-thinking utility workers, who rerouted power around the site and asked power plants in Silicon Valley to produce more electricity. But the substation was knocked out for a month.

The FBI says it doesn’t believe a terrorist organization caused the attack but that it continues to investigate the incident.

Smith and colleague Tom McGinty assembled a detailed chronology of the attack that includes some amazing details, including more than 100 fingerprint-free shell casings similar to ones used by AK-47s that were found at the site and small piles of rocks that appeared to have been left by an advance scout to tell the attackers where to get the best shots.

A U.S. Navy investigation ordered by Wellinghoff determined “it was a targeting package just like they would put together for an attack,” he said.

Other utility officials disagree with Wellinghoff’s assessment, and say the electric grid remains highly resilient.

Click here to read the full story at »

Read more:

Read more:

Suicide Watch: Injecting The UAW Into VW ‘Like Inserting A Cancer Cell Into A Body’


This is from Joe For America.

I doubt the UAW gets into the new VW plant.

It would be suicidal for the new VW plant.

I bet the UAW is gearing up for a strike against the Big 3 auto makers.


Is putting a union like the UAW into Volkswagen’s only manufacturing plant in the U.S. like a person injecting himself with cancer cells?

According to Wall Street Journal editorial board member Steve Moore it is.

While union proponents may find Steve Moore’s comments last week to a group of business leaders rather inflammatory, given unions’ track record in manufacturing and VW’s prior failed experience with the UAW in the U.S., as the UAW tries to unionize Volkswagen’s plant in Tennessee, there may be some truth to Moore’s comparison.

Wall Street Journal editorial board member Steve Moore railed against the United Auto Workers union’s attempt to organize in Chattanooga’s Volkswagen plant Wednesday night.

It’s like inserting a cancer cell into a body,” he said. “That one cancer cell is going to multiply and kill the body. It’s a disruptive influence.”


The outspoken conservative addressed about 50 Chattanooga business people and civic leaders at Wednesday night’s event, which was sponsored by The Beacon Center of Tennessee, a nonprofit lobbying group that aims to advance free market policy in the state. [Emphasis added.]


Moore’s comments, coincidentally, come at a time when UAW bosses in Michigan are planning to increase dues UAW members pay to the union by an astounding 25%.


The purpose for the dues hike, according to UAW boss Bob King, is to replenish the union’s strike fund ahead of talks with Chrysler, Ford and General Motors in 2015.

King said the increase would be the equivalent of a half-hour increase in monthly wages — from 2 hours’ to 2.5 hours’ pay — and would go into the UAW’s strike fund. [Emphasis added.]

On the heels of the auto bailouts costing taxpayers billions, while a strike at U.S. auto plants in 2015 is not a certainty, the union’s hiking of dues in anticipation of a strike does not lend any credibility to the “new image” the UAW is trying to assert, making UAW boss Bob King’s “business partner” concept more rhetoric than reality.

If so, it wouldn’t be the first time.

In the 1970s, like today, Volkswagen had a plant in the U.S.—only then, the plant was in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania.

Like today, the United Auto Workers received help from the German union IG Metall and unionized the Pennsylvania plant’s workers. That didn’t last long, however.

Due to flagging demand and an adversarial relationship with the UAW, VW closed that plant, exiting manufacturing in the U.S. for nearly three decades.

Several unauthorized walk-outs by workers in the plant’s first two years left a bitter taste with some managers. One former VW executive said if he could do it all over again, he would have urged the company to open a non-union plant in the South.


In one of the early walk-outs, workers chanted “No Money, No Bunny,” referring to their refusal to build the VW Rabbit unless they were paid wages and benefits equal to those of UAW workers at the Detroit automakers. Other walk-outs took aim at what workers saw as unfair dismissals or treatment. [Emphasis added.]

Now, as VW has opened a non-union plant in the South, people may begin to wonder if Chattanooga won’t turn into another Detroit if it becomes unionized—VW’s experience with the UAW in Pennsylvania won’t repeat itself in Tennessee.

At its peak, Volkswagen’s Westmoreland plant had over 6,000 employees. It was organized by the UAW, true to form, work started with a strike. Ten years later, Volkswagen closed the plant, production moved to Mexico. Today the entire population of New Stanton, Pa., is 1,906. The plant is still empty.



Closing the plant did cost many lives. Reuters talked to Ron Dinsmore, a former VW worker. He “kept a grisly toll of the pain: the number of suicides of former workers. He stopped counting at 19. ‘I used to go to every funeral home,’ said Dinsmore, 71. ‘I quit doing it. It got morbid.’

Perhaps Steve Moore’s cancer comparison isn’t too far fetched after all.



Image credit.

For related articles on the UAW’s attempt to unionize Volkswagen, go here.



Chamber of Commerce Spending $50 Million to Fight Tea Party

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

This proves the Establishment Republicans would rather lose.

They want Tea Party candidates to not be nominated so the

Establishment Republican will get nominated then lose.

So the Tea Party can be blamed then disgraced for the loss.


Establishment Traitor                                  Patriotic American

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is ready to take on the tea party in 2014 Senate primaries and elections with a deep-pocketed boost of establishment and business Republican candidates, The Wall Street Journal reports.

“Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates,” Chamber strategist Scott Reed told the Journal. “That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket.”

The financial support, which The Hill reported would pour at least $50 million into the campaigns of centrist GOP candidates, is part of an aggressive approach toward tea party Republicans since the 16-day October government shutdown.

The Chamber has expressed its displeasure with tea party favorites Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who resisted passing a budget without a provision that to defund Obamacare, triggering the stalemate.

Just a month later, the Chamber jumped into the intraparty GOP voting, backing establishment GOP candidate Bradley Byrne over tea party prospect Dean Young in an Alabama special House election.

Byrne beat Young, and went on to an easy victory in the Dec. 17 special election, defeating Democrat Burton LeFlore.

The Chamber — which hasn’t usually gotten involved in GOP primaries — is airing ads for Rep. Mike Simpson in Idaho, where he faces a tea party-back challenger in his race for a ninth House term.

Hard-right candidates’ blunders are perceived to have cost the GOP five Senate seats in recent years, The Hill reported.

Republicans, for example, lost Senate elections in Indiana and Missouri after conservative candidates made controversial comments about abortion and rape that hurt their support, particularly among women.

The Chamber could also toss its influence into upcoming Senate races in Georgia,
Iowa, and North Carolina, where tea party candidates are challenging, The Hill reported.




Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: